This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Kelli T. Richardson, MS; Andrea Globokar, MS; Diana B. Pugh, MA; Maureen M. Bushmann, MA
Irene Walter Rehabilitation Institute Washington University Medical Center 509 S Euclid Ave St Louis, MO 63110

Arch Neurol. 1989;46(3):249.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Hartman and Landau,¹ in the June 1987 issue of the ARCHIVES, concluded that "conventional" speech therapy provides no more benefit than supportive counseling. What is conventional speech therapy and how was it evaluated by the authors? Hartman and Landau define it as the therapeutic techniques stressing language "drills" that were published by Schuell et al over 30 years ago.²

While conventional therapy can provide a structural basis for treatment, it does not meet specific patient needs. Fortunately in the past 30 years, significant gains have been made in both theory and practice in the area of speech therapy. Given the sophistication now available for differential diagnosis of language disorders associated with cerebrovascular accident, speech pathologists need not rely only on conventional therapy but have available to them techniques related to specific language deficits.^3-6 These advancements in therapeutic technique were not acknowledged in their study. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?